Consultation
with Christleton residents on traffic issues
An invitation to all
Christleton residents
This document is
intended to help in preparing a village questionnaire on traffic issues
so that we can develop a Village Traffic Plan. Residents are invited to
comment on any aspect of it with a view to improving its content,
presentation, etc. Contributions can be sent via email
or telephone. Contact details are on the Traffic Group webpage.
|
1.
Background to the consultation
A meeting on traffic issues was held in November 2007 as a result of
widening village interest following vehicle speed and density surveys
and use of the radar gun equipment by Plough Lane residents.
The scope of the initiative has been restricted to the conservation
area, its inter-connecting roads and the five feeder roads into the
village.
Various concerns about traffic have been raised at different times over
recent years. Complaints have been made separately about parking,
vehicle density and speed to the Parish Council and City and County
Councillors. As a result individual topics have been dealt with on a
separate basis. For example, two 30mph entry points to the village have
been reinforced by prominent road markings and traffic lights installed
at Rowton Bridge.
However, the general view of residents we have spoken to is that
problems have continued to get worse. People were concerned about
vehicle speed and a perceived increase in traffic density; especially
on the 'rat runs' through the village. People were concerned by the
impact of large and heavy vehicles on our village roads, which were
described by one resident as 'built for hay-wains'.
Parking around the schools and in the centre of the village obstructed
traffic flow, caused congestion and was said to 'make a mockery' of
efforts to improve the appearance of the village and to promote the
quality of village life.
A meeting was held in the High School on 13 November which was attended
by 94 people. Invitations were issued to a total of 140 houses judged
to be immediately affected by traffic issues in the chosen area. The
meeting was designed to be the launch of a wider consultation
– not only with those who were unable to attend but, via the
website or other means, with all residents interested in influencing
the impact of traffic on our village environment.
The meeting tackled the ways in which different aspects of road usage
interacted with each other. A plan for overall improvement must bring
all aspects and all interested parties together.
(Back to top)
2.
The process of consultation
The
meeting organisers proposed that
sufficient time should be taken to consult widely with Christleton
residents and that it was important to address all traffic concerns
because acting on one can affect others. The organisers believe these
proposals were widely supported.
This
document is now available to all
Christleton residents on the website www.christleton.org and its
existence will be advertised in the Parish and A41 magazines. As we
have no resources we will have to ask for a small contribution to cover
the cost of producing any paper copies requested.
Christleton
residents are asked to
respond by letting us know of any concerns, issues or possible
solutions regarding traffic in the village which are not listed in
Appendix A. Please also let us know if you have any comments on the
discussion of issues in the rest of the document.
The next step
will be to
produce a questionnaire to test residents'
opinions on the importance of these issues and how acceptable any
measures to control problems would be. We would like to start preparing
the questionnaire in March so please let us have your comments as soon
as possible. At all times during the widening consultation process we
will take account of further comments and suggestions offered by
residents and will seek to improve the document.
(Back to top)
3. Outcomes from the Meeting
There
was strong support for:
·
reducing the volume of traffic using the village roads as through routes
·
making use of physical deterrents to deter traffic not
essential to village life
·
eliminating the widespread abuse of speed limits in the
village
·
accepting that physical calming methods to control
speeding, eg, chicanes and other roadway modifications were agreeable
to residents (provided they were
sympathetically designed)
·
exercising control over access to village roads by heavy
and large vehicles which are not essential to village life
Suggestions
were made regarding:
·
closing off
or restricting access routes, particularly the junction of Rowton
Bridge Road with the A41
·
revising the position of 30mph roundels
·
lowering some speed limits to 20mph
What to do about
parking
problems in the village was very much less
clear. This is an example where there are multiple interactions:
convenience for residents, village appearance, deterrence for traffic
flows, the effect on traffic speeds, problems of enforcement, and so
on. We are relying on the wider consultation to help clarify residents'
priorities.
(Back to top)
4. Parking in the Village
Parking
is a distinctive
issue which strongly colours discussion of road use and abuse in
Christleton.
Opinions
on the need or desirability of
change vary widely. Any initiatives to impose control will require wide
understanding and support by village residents.
Parking
in the village centre
A
village initiative to discuss
parking was organised by the Parish Council (in 2004) in response to
businesses in the village centre fearing customers could not park near
them. Residents decided that formal restrictions would not be sought in
the village centre, but staff of businesses were asked to improve their
parking practices and to address the needs of their clients.
Residents
were highly sceptical of
assurances by the Deva Bridge Club that their members did not
contribute to the problem, and people who attended the Nov 07 meeting
were equally unconvinced.
There
is a balance to be struck when
thinking about what should be done. If parking were to be eliminated by
any means the easing of traffic flow along Village Road would increase
the attraction of the route for 'rat runs' through the village. It is
possible that road 'treatments' could limit vehicle speeds in the
village centre, which would otherwise increase, but those would
inevitably change the appearance and character of the area.
It
is
considered important that local
residents should have priority for village resources and that the life
of the village, including businesses, should be enhanced.
Formal
parking restrictions would be
ineffective unless rigorously enforced. A benefit would be in enabling
Police officers to take action in the event of obstruction. They may do
so now but officers have to judge there is obstruction rather than
simply pursuing the breach of a regulation.
Parking
around the schools
Parking
by vehicles picking pupils up in
the afternoon has a major impact on the village. Morning dropping-off
tends to be done from vehicles which stop briefly and move away. In
contrast, vehicles picking pupils up start occupying the 'pole
positions' near the school gates well before school ends and cause
major congestion in Quarry Lane, Plough Lane and Village Road.
Residents
complain of restricted access
to their properties and even of driveways being blocked.
Parking
causes concern when interacting
with heavy traffic flows. The morning and evening tidal 'rat-running'
creates severe congestion with village centre parking. Traffic
generated by the schools, particularly the flows away from the schools
in the afternoon, interacts with parking to cause congestion throughout
the village. There are problems with buses having to negotiate the
village centre where it is normal for the road width to be reduced to
one lane - for the length of the double bend from Birch Heath Lane to
Woodfields.
Efforts
are being made to encourage
pupils to walk or cycle to school. The Parish Council is working with
the High School on measures to reduce the need to park in close
proximity to the school.
However,
the view was expressed at
the Nov 07 meeting that whatever is done to reduce parking near the
school there will always be a significant number of parents who take
advantage of any cleared space to park for their own convenience.
Formal restrictions on parking would only be effective if remorselessly
enforced. This equally applies to control of parking in the village
centre. The reduction in drivers who use the village as a through route
at the times of congestion does highlight the deterrent effect this
has, and the potential for people to find alternative routes if they
are sufficiently restricted.
Overview
on Parking
There
is no clear consensus yet on what
the community wishes to achieve regarding parking in the village, and
what, if anything, should be done.
Some
residents wish to see parking on
the roads eliminated for aesthetic reasons: it spoils the appearance of
the village. Others wish to see parking reduced in some way so that
places are then free for them to park for short periods outside village
businesses, or even for long periods outside their homes.
Examples
of inconsiderate parking which
restrict access to residents' property can be resolved with existing
Police powers.
Some
residents have expressed the view
that whatever efforts are made to find alternative sites for
pupil-ferrying parents or shoppers using village businesses there will
always be a core body of drivers who will take up the convenience of
the space created close to the schools or shops.
The
only effective control of parking in
the village would be by regulations being made, roads marked and
continuous enforcement. The majority of residents who have expressed
their opinion on that option are against that approach.
Parking
and Traffic interaction
Other
concerns regarding parking arise
from the inevitable conflict between parked vehicles and the flow of
traffic. Perhaps, therefore, the attack on the issue should be focused
on reducing traffic which is not generated by residents.
Improvement to
congestion
would come by deterring through flows of
traffic not essential to the village and by separating school-leaving
traffic from areas restricted by parking.
(Back to top)
5. Traffic density and speed
Road
usage by residents is overwhelmed
by the volume of two 'tidal rat-runs' through the village.
One
flow is to and from the A41 - A51
which is popular as a means of by-passing the 'Sainsbury's roundabout'
and ring road traffic light junctions. This flow affects Little Heath
Road and Rowton Bridge Road. The second is between Chester and the
villages to the South East of Christleton which affects Pepper Street
and Plough Lane.
Both channel
traffic
through the village centre - or via Quarry Lane at
times of known congestion. Both flows result from the perception of a
convenient route, but in both cases are provided for by other roads
which are more suited to the volumes of traffic than the traditional
village centre.
Traffic speed
Reliable
anecdotal evidence for inappropriate vehicle
speeds has been offered for all feeder roads into the village and for
the interconnecting roads: Village Road and Quarry Lane.
The behaviour of drivers strongly suggests the effect of 'compensatory
speeding'. Drivers having experienced delays in the village centre
appear to abuse the out-going village roads by speeding to compensate
for the perceived loss of time.
The installation of any traffic calming measures can only be done after
a formal confirmation of problems by the County Highways department.
The case for a formal survey would be assisted by any measurements
resident groups can make. Use of the radar equipment or Speed
Indicating Device (SID) by residents will build the case by collection
of measured data.
Speed measurements in Plough Lane
The only substantial set of statistical data has been collected for
Plough Lane. Measurements made by residents indicate a mean speed of
36mph and 15% of vehicles exceed 42mph (the '85-percentile speed') for
most day-time periods. This compares with the Department for Transport
(DfT) expectation that mean speed should be at or below the posted
speed limit (30mph) - see Appendix C.
The lane is a bus route. Observations show 50% of buses exceed the
speed limit when the road is clear enough for them to do so.
This road, in common with most routes radiating from the school sites,
is an important walking and cycling route for pupils. It is a
County-recommended cycle route and is used at all times by cyclists and
walkers.
At its narrowest points the lane is not wide enough for a car to pass
the service buses which use this route without careful manoeuvring at
slow speed, sometimes requiring vehicles to mount the pavement. The
pavement width at several points is only 1m or less.
The measured vehicle speeds are
clearly inappropriate for the characteristics of the lane and measures
are required to regulate these at the 30mph gateway and within the
length of the lane.
Other roads
Measurement of traffic speed and density will be required to support
anecdotal evidence before any case can be made for traffic calming
measures. Residents who wish to add weight to claims for attention can
be trained in the use of the radar speed gun and the vehicle activated
speed indicating device (SID). Both can be used to measure the severity
of the local problem.
(Back
to top)
6. What should guide solutions?
To
guide our thinking about the
resolution of these problems it may be useful to state some principles
to be followed, for example:
·
The statutory restrictions in place now regarding speed limits and
bridge use are sound if observed
·
Change of driver behaviour can be brought about by enforcement of
prevailing rules, altering the environment to make poor behaviour more
difficult and demonstrating to drivers that residents are endangered
and offended by their actions.
·
The narrow and rural roads of the village are adequate for
residents’ needs
· The
road system is not adequate or appropriate for through flows for
which less restricted road routes are available
· We
wish to promote village life and activity
· We
wish to retain as far as possible the present appearance of the
village
Coming
closer to the specific circumstances in the village, the following
concepts might assist in making choices:
· Changes
in the pattern of parking will inevitably cause changes in
traffic flow
· The
elimination of village centre parking would undoubtedly increase
speed and make the village more attractive as a short-cut route -
unless traffic control measures are introduced
· Parking
generated by the personal activities of residents in the
village centre would be acceptable to the local community
· Parking
associated with the presence of schools in the village needs to
be addressed in its own right by developing school practices, policies
and physical resources.
· It
has been suggested that whatever arrangements are made for reducing
the need to park at the school entrance, there will always be some
drivers who will take advantage of the cleared space as convenient
waiting areas
· Restrictions on parking in the
vicinity of
schools or in the village centre will not work unless intensively
enforced
·
In a situation when 50% of drivers flout existing speed limits there is
little benefit in further reducing these limits as a first step
·
Observations suggest that the majority of drivers who speed in the
village are not residents and are using the village as a convenient
through route
·
The priority is to deter traffic which has no business in the village
·
The speed of all traffic in the village should be regulated by traffic
calming measures
·
Residents would accept the use of traffic calming or regulation if
measures proved effective with respect to through traffic
·
At the moment there are no indications to drivers of
through traffic that Christleton residents object to speeding,
anti-social parking or other abuses.
(Back
to top)
Appendix A
Summary of
issues and proposals received
The
following items are the
issues and
proposals put forward at the meeting in November 2007 together with
those offered up to the date of publishing on the website. They will be
used to draw up the questionnaire for residents, which is the proposed
next step in the consultation process.
If
you wish to add to the
list of
issues, proposals or to the general comments please do so by the end of
March 2008. See the start of the main document for the means to send
your comments to the authors.
| Issues |
Proposals
from meeting |
Through
traffic
- tidal
'rat-runs'
Speed generally
- village
used as through route
Vehicle
size
-
60 seat
coaches to and from High School
- articulated vehicles using A41/A51 'rat-run'
Parking
throughout village |
Control
all 5 entrances to village using
chicanes
Selective closure of roads
One way systems
One way at key times of the day
Close Rowton Bridge from 8 – 10am
No right turn into village off A41 from south
Lower
speed in central village
Cycle path needed through village
Bus and coach size should be restricted
Heavy goods not allowed through
Introduce
‘Resident Parking’ areas in the village
Build a village car park |
General
considerations
Businesses and
activities in village centre generate need for parking – we
do want the village to thrive and be active
One way systems create speed and make difficulties for residents
Care not to move problems to other places
Interaction between areas and issues must
be thought through |
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
| Straight
stretch from Bridge to centre of village induces some to speed |
Lumps,
bumps, chicanes
Reduction in current speed limit
Resurface road |
General
considerations
Traffic density
- No real problem
Parking
-
Generally low priority with occasional exceptions at Church and Parish
Hall
|
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Top priority in Little Heath Road linked with
volume
- school runs and rat runs
- enormous buses on roads built for hay wains
- road inadequate for 60 seat
buses
Excessive speed approaching village at Pit |
Reduce attractiveness as rat-run by using
chicanes
Calming measures are needed – preferably
chicanes
Reduce speed to 20mph |
General
considerations
This series of
bends has little impact on speed
Siting of
chicanes would be important |
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Traffic speed
- speeding coming towards village centre on the
bend from The Pit
- vehicles take no notice of speed limit and
accelerate as soon as clear of parking -
vehicles don’t slow
down on the way in
Parking
- generally never-ending in area nearest village
- permanent parking outside the Home
- traffic turning in
private
driveways
|
Traffic
calming at village entrances
Sleeping policemen
|
General
considerations
Agree village gateways can be made decorative
features |
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Not
just (individual) very high speed but general
high speed
Buses’ speed especially at night
Excessive speed at Plough Lane/Village Road junction
Volume of traffic
- morning and evening 'rat-runs'/non-local traffic
-
school traffic
Pedestrian and
cycling risks
Cyclists on road/on pavement Street lighting
Parking in lane
- congestion around school gate
- thoughtless and careless parking at the cross-roads
- buses can’t get out of school
Construction traffic blocking lane Parking by
cottages
Type of vehicles
-
large vehicles in
narrow lane
|
Traffic
calming
- chicanes at 30mph entry and mid-lane
- speed ramps/cushions
- 30 mph flasher
- narrow roads in sections/give way stretches
- 20 mph limit (round schools)
- fixed speed camera
Regular monitoring (by Police)
Enforcement of speed limit
Lobby bus company
Design traffic calming to control bus speed
Re-profile turn into Plough Lane from Village Road
Stop traffic using village as cut through
Restrict to one lane at Park Fields Farm to
- reinforce traffic calming
- widen path for prams and disability vehicles
- stop passing vehicles mounting pavement
Need cycle path
Stop through traffic of heavy goods |
General
considerations
Young drivers
– rushing back and forward from school
People rushing to get to night school (and gym)
Road widened so easier to speed - hedge taken out
Pavement has given drivers security – a comfort zone
People used it as a short cut during road works – then keep
using it
60 mph limit not appropriate from cross-roads, cf A41 at 40 mph
Speed
measurements in the lane show serious departure from the speed limit
and make a strong case for traffic calming
|
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Excessive speed
associated with through traffic
Dangers to
pedestrians:
- no/limited pavement areas
- danger spots at hump-back bridge and blind spots near Plough Lane
– increasing numbers of cars etc
Danger to cycles ridden by children
Traffic volume due to 'rat-run' between A41 and A51
Difficulty for residents getting out of driveways
Residents parking near bridge creates dangers
High school parents park/drop children off, creating additional hazards
School-related traffic at peak school times
Problems with large, overweight vehicles attempting to use Rowton Bridge |
Priority
narrowing/chicanes changing priorities along the route: this
might also provide some pavement space
Create a bend in road using open area at Badger Close
20 mph restrictions throughout the village
Put a pavement in
Stop rat run – close Rowton Bridge from 8 – 10am
No right turn into village off A41 coming into Chester
Close junction with A41
Clarify weight and width restrictions before vehicles enter village
Remove route from sat-nav systems |
|
General
considerations
Traffic lights have reduced number of minor shunts
at the bridges
Police and Ambulance traffic has increased
|
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Parking
on Village Road and
around village green
- parking on pavement and vehicles travelling on the pavement are a
danger to children walking to/from school.
Bridge club parking is blocking residents’ drives
Speed of traffic
Traffic density
- traffic surging at school start and finish time
- through traffic: A41 to A51 and Chester to SE
Pedestrian safety
- people from old peoples’ home are in danger
- driving on kerbs in Village Road |
Limit parking time in village
Ban parking, other than outside the Post Office for customers, from the
Green to the High School
Introduce parking restrictions in area around village green
30 minutes free parking 8am – 6pm
15 min parking (near Post Office)
Single yellow lines (near Institute/Bridge Club)
Parking places enforced
Speed bumps on bends by Pit and Birch Heath Lane
Reduction of traffic speed by 20 mph in village
20mph signs and flashers
Cobblestones – suitable for conservation area
Speed bumps
Introduce ‘traffic calming’
More active speed checking
Discourage with traffic calming
One way system
Separate school traffic from areas affected by parking, eg, school car
park with new access from Birch Heath Lane |
General
considerations
Businesses and activities in village centre generate need for parking
– we do want the village to thrive and be active
More busing of school children to High School and sports facilities
The interaction of parking with heavy traffic flows causes congestion -
particularly at school finish times
|
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Excessive
parking
in front of school gates and throughout the village at
‘school surge’ times
- also for night school and school evening events
Driveways blocked when dropping off/ collecting children
Parking on pavement at school drop off/pick up – in school
gates/yellow zig-zags
Very large coaches used for pupil transfer
School cyclists take dangerous risks eg, riding at speed on pavements,
riding in groups across the road |
School
should encourage bikes and walking
Pupils should be on buses & not in cars
Use of Park & Ride as possible solution
Introduce parking restrictions in area around school
Bollards on both sides of school gate
Park and walk system
Off load children at Trooper on A41
Reduce school traffic by having satellite drop-off/pick up
points, eg,Park & Ride, Trooper
Bus pupils out to satellite pick-up points
Use field by Law College or by Cheshire Cat
Restrict number of cars coming in with school children
Designate in/out school gates
Provide parking at school for drop off or one-way system –
through to Birch Heath
Stop parking round school gate so buses can get past |
General considerations
More sixth formers/teenagers with cars |
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
|
Another
toast-rack at the Primary School
Get Primary School involved in making road speed signs |
Issues
|
Proposals from meeting
|
Speeding
– taxis notable – 50 plus –especially at
night
Traffic volume
- School traffic
Parking
- vehicles abandoned during day in ‘Toast rack’ and
Woodfields, then backs up onto Quarry Lane pavement |
One
way system in Quarry Lane - along Faulkners Lane, from Pepper
Street direction to Quarry Lane |
General considerations
Traffic diverts into Quarry Lane to avoid congestion/parking in the
village centre
Vehicles and property damaged – bus incident
Action
proposals
Get costs of various measures and potential initiatives
Find out what other villages do
Publicise web address for documents in A41 & Parish Magazines
Contributory funding for any of these/reasonable suggestions
– eg, speed gun
Approach the appropriate authorities
Consider this as part of the overall solutions, eg, speed limits,
chicanes, etc
Traffic calming measures are inappropriate due to noise &
environmental concerns |
(Back to top)
Appendix B
Overview
of road system and associated problems
The road system we are looking at consists of the five entry
roads into the village and the two main interconnecting
roads: Village Road and Quarry Lane.
Pepper Street
·
The canal bridge provides some deterrent to large vehicles
·
Christleton Law College generates a moderate amount of
traffic at set times which divides between routes into the village and
towards Chester
·
The down-slope from the bridge and the incline towards the
village encourages vehicles to gather speed
·
The approach to the Village Green is sometimes affected by
parked vehicles, particularly when Church or Parish Hall events take
place.
·
Concerns raised about vehicles speeding towards the village
Little Heath
Road
·
Vehicles leaving the village are regulated by the series of
blind bends
·
Vehicles approaching the village experience a short 40mph
stretch before entering the 30mph zone
·
The openness of the Pit area gives an impression of space
to drivers
·
The first sharp bend to the right has been re-profiled
recently as part of the revised entry to Little Mere housing.
It presents the appearance of a road which contrasts with the sharpness
of the turn and subsequent narrowness
·
Bends inwards towards the village are blind and
inappropriate speed results in close encounters between vehicles
passing at these points
·
Vehicles speed past the Pit and have on several occasions
mis-judged the first bend. Several have collided with garden
walls having crossed the pavement
·
The Lane is the entry from the North which provides no
discouragement to large vehicles which then block opposing traffic in
the built-up village
·
Peak hour flows increased as a result of diversions for A41
road works and have not abated much as drivers avoid peak-time
congestion on the Chester Ring Road
·
Satellite navigation systems encourage drivers to use this
route between A41/A51. The systems do not indicate
restrictions to road space and usage
·
These last two issues affect Village Road and Rowton Bridge
Road equally
Birch Heath
Lane
·
Road width is reduced at the Village Green end by
persistent and day-long parking
·
The speed limit is routinely ignored by outward traffic
once clear of the parked cars
·
Despite additional road markings the 30mph limit is
frequently flouted by inward traffic despite the narrow and twisting
nature of the approach lane
Plough Lane
·
The High School entrance has a major influence on the
village end of the Lane
·
Vehicles dropping pupils off create traffic obstructions
during the morning peak flow, but generally do not remain stationary
for long periods
·
Vehicles collecting pupils in the afternoon cause severe
obstruction and for a prolonged period. Drivers seeking
‘pole position’ at the school entrance start
parking long before pupils leave
·
The number of vehicles waiting reduce the width available
to that of a medium sized vehicle - for a sufficient length of road to
cause frequent occasions when traffic is brought to a stand-still by
large vehicles or difficulties in resolving the priority for opposing
streams
·
Towards the Brown Heath Road cross-roads the recently
installed foot-path has replaced the high hedge on the inside of a
previously blind bend. The clearer view encourages drivers to
accelerate further before the 30mph de-restriction
·
The Lane carries substantial flows of vehicles at peak
morning and evening periods
·
The Lane is an important walking and cycling route for High
School pupils living in the Waverton direction
·
At the narrowest part of the Lane the footpath has
stretches which are less than 1m wide
·
Cars are frequently parked on the footpath in this part of
the Lane which forces walkers, prams, small children, etc to divert
onto the roadway
·
There is a general flouting of the 30mph speed limit by
drivers at all times of the day and on all days of the week
·
At any time of day half of the vehicles using the Lane
exceed 35mph – ie are liable to prosecution for speeding
·
Driver discipline is shocking at the busiest
times. Aggressive tail-gating and attempts to overtake
drivers observing the speed limit are common, despite the narrowness of
the road
·
Vehicles parked fully on the road act as effective
restraints to speeding
·
Impact damage from passing vehicles is a frequent occurrence
·
At least one parked vehicle has been completely written off
in the last few years following a collision
·
The turn-off from Village Road into Plough Lane is very
generously profiled, leading to vehicles taking the turn at
speed. Vehicles regularly lose control on this
turn: one serious accident has occurred when a vehicle rolled
over and destroyed a length of hedge
·
The road markings intended to reinforce the entry into the
30mph speed limit appeared to have no impact on vehicle speed
Rowton Bridge
Road
·
Rowton Bridge Road carries the traffic which uses the
village as a route from the A41/A51 (See comments for Little
Heath Road)
·
Rowton Bridge has weight and width restrictions
·
Large vehicles approaching Rowton Bridge Road from Village
Road have received no prior warning of restrictions on the bridge and
have no indication of which way to go to avoid it
·
Placing traffic lights on the bridge has achieved a major
reduction in accidents and has improved pedestrian safety
·
The traffic lights may have encouraged use of the road as a
short-cut by regulating traffic flow: by reducing the hazard
from using the hump-back bridge with steep approach, blind to oncoming
traffic
·
The road is straight and despite the narrowness before the
Quarry Lane junction vehicles are driven at speeds excessive for the
residential nature of the road
·
Apart from short lengths on either side of Rowton
Bridge there is no pavement
·
The road is another important walking/cycling route for
High School pupils
·
Plans are being made to modify the road at Quarry Lane
junction. The Parish Council has requested that this should
form a restriction to traffic flow at this point
Village Road
·
From the village centre Village Road has a closely built-up
double bend on which are located the village commercial premises, the
Ring o' Bells, Christleton Institute, Deva Bridge Club and the nearby
dental practice
·
All the above generate vehicle parking which reduces the
road to one carriageway for most of the week
·
During Bridge Club sessions this parking extends around
both bends in the road
·
Some residents in the village centre have no off-road
garaging and routinely leave their vehicles on the road
·
All traffic (including the A41/A51
‘rat-run’ traffic) therefore has to negotiate a
blind, single carriageway bend for most of the week
·
Traffic gridlocks are routinely relieved by vehicles
mounting the opposite pavement to allow passing when neither driver
could see the other when entering the single clear lane
·
Large vehicles have to negotiate these constraints on a
daily basis: scheduled service buses, school buses and large
coaches which bring school parties to use the High School and sports
facilities
·
The passage of such vehicles causes much congestion and
manoeuvring with narrow clearances – inevitably vehicles are
regularly damaged
·
Once clear of the parking congestion many South-bound
vehicles accelerate rapidly. The open grassed area appears to
encourage speeding towards the Quarry Lane junction: an
inappropriately fast approach to the narrow entry to Rowton Bridge Road
and the broad turn into Plough Lane
Quarry Lane
·
Quarry Lane is frequently used by through traffic to
by-pass the village centre at known times of congestion
·
The Primary School generates similar parking congestion to
the High School: short-lived drop-offs in the morning, but a
protracted period of solidly parked obstruction of one carriageway in
the afternoon
·
The Primary School traffic moving away then interacts with
vehicles parking up for High School pupil collection
(Back
to top)
Appendix
C
What
does the Department for Transport (DfT) have to say which is relevant
to our problems?
DfT quotations are in italics
·
Our comments on the
relevance to Christleton have bullet points
Efforts should therefore
be made to promote use of more suitable routes for through traffic and
to manage the speed of traffic requiring access to residential streets
using traffic calming and associated techniques (see Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 03/90; DoT, 1990).
·
This statement seems to sum up the objectives for
Christleton
Successful 20 mph zones
and 20 mph speed limits should be generally self-enforcing.
Traffic authorities
should take account of the level of police enforcement required
before installing either
of these measures. 20 mph speed limits are unlikely to be
complied with on roads
where vehicle speeds are substantially higher than this and,
unless such limits are
accompanied by the introduction of traffic calming measures,
police forces may find
it difficult to routinely enforce the 20 mph limit.
Traffic Advisory Leaflet
09/99 (20 mph Speed Limits and Zones)
Research into 20 mph
speed limits carried out by TRL (Mackie, 1998) showed that,
where speed limits alone
were introduced, reductions of only about 2 mph in
‘before’
speeds were achieved. 20
mph speed limits are, therefore, only suitable in areas where
vehicle speeds are
already low (the Department would suggest where mean vehicle
speeds are 24 mph or
below), or where additional traffic calming measures are planned as
part of the strategy.
·
20mph zones are probably not relevant to Christleton's
problems
Traffic calming involves
the installation of proven physical or psychological measures to
encourage lower traffic speeds. There are many measures available to
traffic authorities to help them reduce vehicle speeds and ensure
compliance with the speed limit in force.
... the most popular and
effective measures:
road humps
road
narrowing measures
gateways
road markings
rumble
devices.
·
Psychological measures also include the 'de-cluttering' of
village areas and the deliberate blurring of the distinction between
road and pedestrian use; the intention being to raise
drivers' level of attention. Potentially relevant to the
village centre.
The speed limit on
single carriageway rural roads should take into account traffic and
road user mix, the road’s geometry and general
characteristics, its surroundings, and the potential safety and
environmental impacts.
It is recommended that
the minimum length of a village speed limit should be at least
600 metres.
Speed can also be a
major factor in the severance of local communities from
essential facilities and
lead to a reduced quality of life.
Traffic authorities
should particularly intervene on roads where there is a case for
encouraging use by, or
safeguarding the needs of, vulnerable road users.
·
Walking and cycling by pupils at village schools, as well
as by an increasing number of residents, are strong arguments for
intervention.
Speed limits should be
considered as only one part of rural safety management, and what the
road looks like to the road users, the road function, traffic mix, and
road and rural characteristics should be taken into account.
In rural areas every
effort should be made to achieve an appropriate balance between
speeds, speed limits,
road function and design, the differing needs of road users, and
other characteristics.
This balance may be delivered by introducing one or more speed
management measures in conjunction with the new speed limits and/or as
part of an overall route safety strategy. The aim should be to align
the local speed limit so that the ... mean speed driven on the road is
at or below the new posted speed limit for that road.
Mean speed should be
used for the assessment. For the majority of roads there is a
consistent relationship
between mean speed and 85th percentile speed. Where this is
not the case, it will
usually indicate that drivers have difficulty in deciding the
appropriate speed for
the road, suggesting that a better match between road design and speed
limit is required.
The aim should be to
align the speed limit to the prevailing conditions, and
all vehicles moving at speeds as close to the
posted speed limit as possible.
For mean speeds to be
acceptable, they should be no higher than the posted limit after it has
been implemented. Research shows that, for a typical distribution of
vehicle speeds on single carriageway rural roads, the 85th percentile
speed is about 6 mph above the mean speed for roads with a 50 mph
limit, and about 8 mph above mean speed on roads with a 60 mph limit.
·
The expectation for the level of speed emphasises the
discrepancy in Plough Lane where mean speeds of 36mph and 85-percentile
speeds of 42mph have been measured.
·
The ability to make reference to hard statistical data
underlines the importance of obtaining it for areas considered
anecdotally to be threatened.
The (speed limit
roundel) sign should be located as near as practicable to the start of
the development, so that drivers see housing at the same time as the
signs, reinforcing the visual message for reduced speed.
·
The suggestion to move the 30mph sign in Plough Lane to the
junction with Brown Heath Road is probably not appropriate for this
reason
... lower speed limits
on their own without supporting physical measures, driver information
and publicity or other measures will not necessarily change driver
behaviour and therefore
will result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at
unacceptable speeds.
·
'Supporting physical measures' look to be the key to the
required improvements
Chicanes
(Department for Transport leaflet - Chicane schemes)
Horizontal deflections
have mainly been installed to influence vehicle speeds, though not
always successfully.
Chicanes have been
effective in reducing vehicle speeds, as long as large vehicles such as
articulated lorries do not have to be accommodated. Where this occurs
the stagger length may need to be so long that car drivers can adopt a
relatively straight line through the chicane, and therefore speeds are
not reduced.
(The trial) showed that
installing speed cushions on the approach to a chicane would partially
compensate for longer stagger lengths required to accommodate large
vehicles, while keeping the speed of cars to around 20mph.
Chicane designs vary
considerably ... two broad categories ... :
(a)
single lane working consisting of
build-outs, staggered on alternate sides of the road, narrowing the
road so that traffic from one direction has to give way to opposing
traffic;
(b)
two-way working, using build-outs to
provide deflection, but with lanes separated by road markings, or a
central island.
(From studies) ... the
overall reduction at the chicanes for both mean and 85th
percentile speed was 12
mph. The average mean speed was found to be 23 mph and the 85th
percentile speed 28 mph.
Speed at chicanes:
At single
lane working chicanes, the average mean speed was 21 mph and the
average 85th percentile speed was 26 mph. The average reduction in the
85th percentile speed was 14 mph. At one scheme which incorporated a
speed cushion, the mean speed fell to 12 mph. At two-way
working chicanes the average mean speed was 27 mph and the average 85th
percentile speed was 31 mph. The average reduction in the 85th
percentile speed was 11 mph.
Speeds between chicanes:
The
information available indicated a reduction in overall mean speeds to
29 mph,
and 85th percentile
speeds to 31 mph.
There appeared to be
greater reductions in speeds between chicanes where single lane working
schemes were used. Reductions for both mean and 85th percentile speeds
of 12 mph were obtained, giving speeds of 23 mph and 27 mph
respectively. At two way working schemes the reduction was 6 mph, with
mean and 85th percentile speeds of 31 mph and 34 mph.
·
The information suggests that chicanes could well be the
appropriate 'physical supporting measures': both for
deterring through traffic and regulating speeds in village feeder roads.
The average cost of
installing a single lane working chicane was £3,000,
including signing and lighting. (TRL Report 313, 1999).
For the combination of a
roundabout or gateway and chicane to be both safe and effective, they
must be within a relative short distance of each other. Drivers have
some disincentive to accelerate if they are aware of the chicane as
they pass the gateway or roundabout. The chicane would need to be
located about 40m to 80m from the roundabout or gateway. The more
severe the chicane deflection,or the higher the approach speed, the
closer the chicane would need to be to the gateway or roundabout.
Illumination and signing
of chicanes needs to be checked regularly, as poorly illuminated or
poorly signed chicanes can become hazards during bad
weather, including snow, or the hours of darkness.
At single lane working
chicanes, opposing drivers should have sufficient visibility to enable
either of them to give way to the other without sudden braking.
Entry
treatments (Department for Transport
leaflet - Entry treatments)
The design of an entry
treatment can incorporate a wide variety of features. These include:
build-outs and
pinch-points, changes in surface texture or colour, vertical
deflections of the carriageway, bollards and planting, tactile paving,
signing, vertical design elements (posts, pillars, walls, fences etc)
A combination of these
features can heighten the visual impression given to drivers,
reinforcing the message that the driver is entering a different driving
environment.
Design of an entry
treatment should ... allow for the passage of any vehicle entitled to
use the road. This does not mean, however, that the scheme cannot
include elements designed to discourage access.
Any speed reduction
resulting from the passage of a vehicle across an entry treatment is
unlikely to be sustained for any distance, and may be eroded over time,
unless additional traffic calming features are introduced along the
remainder of the road.
Gateways
The Traffic Calming
Regulations 1993 provide for a gateway to be used "to indicate the
presence in a length or lengths of highway of traffic calming works".
Gateways may be
constructed on the verge, footway or cycle track. One of the main
features will usually be vertical elements at the sides of the road. It
is also possible for a gateway to span the carriageway. In common with
all traffic calming features, a gateway may include paving, grass or
other cover; pillars, planters, walls, rails or fences; and trees,
shrubs and other plants.
Other traffic calming
works may be combined with a gateway. These could include pinch points,
build-outs, islands and rumble devices, together with changes of
carriageway colour and/or texture and the use of appropriate signing.
Where changes in the surface of the carriageway are used, it will
usually be most effective if they start at the gateway, rather than in
advance of it.
It has been found that
any speed reduction achieved by a gateway treatment can be extremely
local and may be eroded over time. To achieve the most beneficial
effect, other traffic calming features will have to be located close to
the gateway, and extend over the length of road over which speeds need
to be constrained.
The TRL report indicates
that gateways can effect speed reductions of up to 6mph. However, where
reductions have been achieved, these have not been sustained over any
distance, and speeds within the village have at most been reduced by
only 1 or 2mph. In some cases increases in speed have occurred.
·
Village traffic plans prepared by other villages which have
these features (entry treatments and gateways) already in place
emphasise the limited distance over which single features are
effective.
Road
Humps (Department for Transport leaflet -
Road humps: discomfort, noise, and ground-borne vibration)
Acceptance of road humps
schemes depends in part on whether traffic speeds are reduced. However,
it is also influenced by the degree of discomfort to vehicle occupants,
and the effect the road humps may have on traffic noise and
ground-borne vibrations. Bus operators, for example, have considerable
concerns about the effects that their passengers and drivers may
experience.
Residents of streets
where road humps are installed will wish to be assured that any traffic
noise or ground-borne vibrations generated are not going to amount to a
nuisance.
·
Residents have mentioned concerns about transmitted
vibration and also adverse emission effects when road humps are used.
Speed
Cushions (Department for Transport
leaflet - Speed cushion schemes)
Three main types of
speed cushion were studied:
(a) a series
of single cushion layouts combined with carriageway narrowings allowing
only single lane working, and therefore more suitable for low flow
roads.
(b) groups of
cushions in pairs allowing two way working, suitable for higher flow
roads.
(c) groups of
cushions three abreast also allowing two-way working - used on wider
carriageways and negating the need to have build outs.
The study has confirmed
that whilst speed cushions can reduce and control vehicle speeds, they
do not match the effect of flat or round top road humps. The overall
average mean and 85th percentile speeds at the cushions monitored were
17 mph and 22 mph respectively, which is higher than those measured at
75 mm high flat and round top humps (see TA Leaflet 2/96)
Speed
in Villages (Department for Transport -
Village Speed Control Work Group)
As the measures were
intended to reduce the speeds of the fastest drivers, a good indicator
of a scheme's effectiveness was changes in the 85th percentile speed.
For the 11 schemes
without measures in the village, those with only minor gateway
treatments achieved reductions in 85th percentile speeds which were
generally below 3mph at the gateways and below 2mph in the village.
With more significant treatments at gateways, speed reductions of 6 -
7mph were attained, with reductions in the village of some 2-3mph.
Where major gateways
relying on more physically restrictive treatments were installed,
reductions in 85th percentile speeds were 10mph in some cases, though
within the village these schemes did not show any greater speed
reductions that the other gateway schemes.
For the 4 schemes which
relied purely on measures in the villages alone, 85th percentile speed
reductions were less than 3mph.
For the 9 schemes having
both measures in the village and significant gateways, generally 85th
percentile speeds at the gateways were reduced by up to 9mph, and
within the village by up to 10mph. However, in one scheme having
measures in the village and a major gateway, both using significant
physical restrictions, 85th percentile speeds reductions of about 12mph
were obtained at the gateways and within the village.
It is clear that to
achieve major reductions in speeds a mixture of gateways and
complementary measures is required.
·
Again, this is the message which stands out from the
traffic plans of other villages where this mixture has not been
installed.
Dragons
Teeth Markings
These are usually placed
prior to speed limit terminal signs. They are rather unsightly and the
Department (for Transport) believes their value to be limited as they
can only be seen close to their location and only have a minor effect
on vehicle speeds.
·
These have been used as gateway features in Plough Lane and
Birch Heath Lane together with speed roundel road markings.
Residents report that no discernible change in speed has resulted from
them.
(Back
to top)